Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jedd | Hacker News Reader

I think there's two (perhaps more) possibilities you've overlooked, that may go some way to explaining this.

First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims, and is not open to taking advice from smarter people.

Second, misdirection. It may be something to draw attention - the whole 'who needs batteries for their car company?' thing - or it might be a decoy offer, never intended to be seriously contemplated, but will serve as an easy-for-the-dumbs-to-understand future-date hand-wavey explanation for why negotiations failed. (This seems more palatable if you already believe the current US administration is compromised.)

View on HN

Third, if US owns the resources and Russia tries to seize it, US would have legit reason to send their troops to Ukraine.

The US has legal reasons now. Ukraine is a sovereign country and would be more than happy to accept US military bases. The US hasn't sent soldiers because they don't want to go to war with Russia

Why would US get involved now when they have nothing to gain and possibly escalate the situation to WW3?

If US owned resources in Ukraine, they have very good reason to deploy troops over there. Russia won't escalate the situation by attacking american resources and troop. This should slow down the war to a good extent combined with the cease fire agreements.

Your logic doesn't make sense. Why would Russia be willing to escalate to ww3 in the first scenario but back down in the second scenario?

And if getting involved will escalate to ww3, what difference does those resource deals make? Either american involvement (via NATO or this mineral deal logic) forces Russia to back down or it doesn't.

Presumably, if US already has all of the minerals it needs, the minerals' deal is going to do as much good as is current status quo.

After all, why would the US get involved when they don't need the minerals they'd have to lose?

US signed memorandum of security for Ukraine. Not involving into Ukraine war means: 1. Nuke is the only option to guarantee security. Everyone should get one. Iran, Venezuela etc. 2. If you have nukes you can occupy neighbors with little/no punishment. Taiwan is the next in line. 3. US is not an ally, could not be trusted in any way.

Sad to see how Trump is dismantling USA from it's role as a global superpower.

1. Nuke doesn't guarantee anything in current situation. Russia might blow up the nuke moment it arrives in Ukr.

2. US France UK has made it very clear that they can occupy and establish military bases in non nuclear countries without repercussions, especially in Middle East and Africa.

3. Memorandum was signed by multiple nuclear countries and none of thier troops are deployed in Ukraine. Besides US was the largest supplier of weapons in Ukraine.

US is hardly affected by Ukr situation. For them to get involved, there should be something at stake. If they owned something in Ukr, they would have reason to defend it with US troops. Russia won't escalate by attacking US troops or resources.

> First, that Donald is not the master negotiator / business genius he claims

We're talking about someone who appears to believe a trade deficit means you're somehow being screwed or getting the short end of a deal. That's mercantilistic nonsense. It's economical thinking on par with a child who believes Scrooge McDuck is a good capitalist.

I think it's likely they know Putin will not honor any peace deal. So they have to figure out a way to blow up this deal and blame it on Ukraine or they'll end up with egg on their face.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com